What did the Pharisees represent?

I, Brian · 09-10-2003, 07:25 PM

Anyone even vaguely familiar with the New Testament and Judaism will likely be familiar with "the Pharisees".

However, I've had difficulty chasing up more details about this group. What did they actually represent? What did they actually belief in?

Josephus is no help here in the work I read, as it has barely a sentence each for the Pharisees and Sadduccees - though does devote a few pages of admiration for the Essenes. (It's great what you can find in ancient literature.

)

My perception of the Pharisee tradition is one of "rules lawyers". However, is that a flawed perception?

Siege · 09-11-2003, 01:08 AM

It's my understanding that they were the good, upstanding Jews of the day. They didn't see themselves as being excessively law-oriented or self-righteous, but as people who behaved the way God instructed them too. Their equivalent in modern day Christianity is probably the people who are the local "pillars of the church", who serve on the vestry if they're Anglican, or on the Altar Guild, who teach Sunday school, and generally believe they're doing a pretty good job of practicing their religion.

CJ

bananabrain · 09-11-2003, 04:19 PM

"pharisee" is not a word that jews ever used to signify a particular group. there is a word "mefarshim", with the root being Peh-Resh-Shin (P=F in hebrew) meaning 'commentators'. taking the legalistic connotations of the NT, i'd say that the "doctors of law" probably signifies the rabbis of the talmudic period - paul himself studied under a 'gamliel' - there were a number of famous tannaim (rabbis of the early talmudic or mishnaic period) of that name. bear in mind that "legalism" is not a bad thing in judaism, law being the paradigm of our our spiritual code. it became so much later on after the pauline tendency began to emphasise "faith and works" as a means of differentiating good christians from hypocritical jews in behavioural terms. therefore, if you wanted to diss someone, you'd accuse them of having their nose in a book of halacha instead of dealing with people as people. it's not a new argument, as it happens; the rabbis themselves had a similar argument with the sadducees and later on, rabbinic judaism had a similar argument with karaism, mystics vs rationalists in the middle ages and chasidim vs mitnagdim (not to mention reform vs orthodox) in the modern period.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I, Brian · 09-11-2003, 07:10 PM

I've had out Strong's Concordance, and "Pharisees" are referenced as "A Jewish Sect". The stem referenced for that from the Greek shows as 5330: Pharisaios - a separatist, ie, exclusively religious; a Pharisoean, ie Jewish Sectary:- a Pharisee.

It also suggests the origin is from the Hebrew word listed 6567: Parash - a primitive root; to separate; literally, to disperse, or figuratively, to specificy; also, by implication, to wound: scatter, declare, distinctly, shew, sting.

Hm...not immediately enlightening.

I was under the impression (from somewhere, no idea where - Josephus??) that the Pharisees were seen as like the Stoics of Rome, and who had exemplified themselves during the period covered in Maccabees - but who had tarnished their image through overt literalism (and probably also political affiliations - I suppose anyassociation with the Herodican dynasty wouldn't necessarily be popular in some quarters).

I've seen Christians use the term agaisnt one another, to imply someone more interested in scriptural legalism than compassionate action - caring for the paper the words are writ on, rather than people they are writ about.

With the comments above I can imagine some element of the Talmudic commentators being referenced - but I'm still not sure of any real definition of a sect.

It would be interesting to see how the Sadduccees differed so significantly.

(I am musing aloud, I guess.)

sjr · 09-11-2003, 08:54 PM

I dont think anyone knows 100% for sure,but the people (Jewish) Ive talked to say they were like bishops in modern christianity. In every town and village at the time of Jesus.Ive read some informative post from practicing Jews here I wish they would take a stab at this question.

Baud · 09-12-2003, 06:24 PM

The definition in my dictionary (translated from French) says:

"Member of a Jewish sect that appeared in the second century bce which purported to follow rigorously and strictly Moses' law, but which is, in the Gospel, charged with sticking too close to formalism and of being hypocrytal." (Petit Larousse Illustré, Larousse, 1993)

I don't know if that helps anyone.

Baud

bananabrain · 09-15-2003, 03:44 PM

as a practicing jew, i believe that the "pharisees" of the NT are an umbrella term for what *became* normative, rabbinic judaism. however, the problem is that in 1st century judea, there was a religious "establishment", namely the Temple, which had central authority and a priestly caste - who were, effectively the people referred to as the "sadducees". the "supreme court" of judaism, the sanhedrin, was in the Temple complex. to get in the sanhedrin (a body of 70 sages) you had to be a sage, not a priest, although some were both. and the sanhedrin had executive and legislative power - but was also susceptible to roman and priestly (ie sadducee) political pressure. eventually, when the Temple was destroyed by the romans after an abortive uprising in 70CE (AD) the authority of the priestly caste was destroyed with it. the alternative was the "roots" movement of the synagogues that sprang up, starting in yavneh under r. yohanan ben zakkai, who escaped from the sack of jerusalem. so, insofar as pre-destruction, there was a group which seemed to correspond more or less to the "pharisaic party", it isn't a clear group of people from a historical or judaic PoV, let alone a "sect", because what is now normative judaism came out of the rabbinic tradition. the essenes, sicarii, gnostics, apocalyptics and those qumran buggers - not to mention the proto-christians - are the ones more properly referred to as sects. in terms of what sjr says i suppose that could refer to whoever in the town or village knew the most law, but it was nothing like being a bishop, more like being the village elder/magistrate. however, you can see how such a person might behave in a manner which might be "pharisaic" in the NT, 'whited sepulchre' sense, and therefore incur the displeasure of a radical populist preacher like jesus - and he'd be right, too.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Dave the Web · 09-21-2003, 09:32 PM

The Pharisees were the letter of the Law. Jesus was the spirit of the Law. That is my interpretation.

bananabrain · 09-22-2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave the Web

The Pharisees were the letter of the Law. Jesus was the spirit of the Law. That is my interpretation.

oh, well, that settles it, don't it? nothing like a straw man.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I, Brian · 09-22-2003, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

oh, well, that settles it, don't it? nothing like a straw man.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Not quite the most helpful attitude. It would be a shame if to disagree were to squabble, rather than accept divergence of interpretations.

bananabrain · 09-22-2003, 06:08 PM

don't mean to carp. what i mean to say is "that's perhaps a little simplistic and more than a little tendentious". i am on a bit of a rant today for some reason. don't mind me.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Dave the Web · 09-24-2003, 09:45 PM

My interpretation is simply that. It is not a truth, simply as way of addressing an issue I can never entertain complete surety of.
It may be simplistic but that is the intention of my comment. I have not the ability to write a essay length perception drawn from various conjectures. I simply view the matter from the New Testament accounts which do make a point of portraying the issues as so. In those accounts the Pharisees seek to prosecute Jesus at every opportunity for breaking the letter of the law. Jesus always rebukes that he is acting within the spirit of it. As ever it is my interpretation and make no claims of being an expert or any kind.

chokmah · 01-06-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

"pharisee" is not a word that jews ever used to signify a particular group. there is a word "mefarshim", with the root being Peh-Resh-Shin (P=F in hebrew) meaning 'commentators'.

Hey Banana:

I've got some time, so I'm going back through old threads. My apologies if it becomes cumbersome.

Anyways... the word that I have heard used the most (as a Hebrew transliteration) is Prushim for the Pharisees. And, if I'm not mistaken, it means something like, "separated ones". Thoughts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-brain

taking the legalistic connotations of the NT, i'd say that the "doctors of law" probably signifies the rabbis of the talmudic period - paul himself studied under a 'gamliel' - there were a number of famous tannaim (rabbis of the early talmudic or mishnaic period) of that name.

Just for future reference, I figured I'd go ahead and express it here: I don't think Paul was what he said he was. Actually, I follow the Ebionite tradition regarding Paul. Hyam Maccoby writes a little bit about this. Essentially, Paul was born a gentile. Converted to Judaism, got spurned, and decided to start a new religion which spawned his amalgamation of Jewish beliefs with Gnostic and mystery cult beliefs.

chokmah · 01-06-2006, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave the Web

The Pharisees were the letter of the Law. Jesus was the spirit of the Law. That is my interpretation.

I don't know if Dave still exists on this site, but I've asked others to define the following for me; but haven't gotten much of an answer:

What is the "letter of the law" and what is the "spirit of the law"?

Curios Mike · 01-07-2006, 06:01 AM

Quote:

What is the "letter of the law" and what is the "spirit of the law"?

Ok I'm no brainiac either, but I'm gonna take a shot, or more like a stumble and fall at/on this one.
Letter of the law meaning. Every "t" crossed, all sentences capitalized, ending with the proper punctuation. In other words leaveing very little room for common sense. (not saying jews are this way, but the pharisess of the time, or bishops of our time

)

Spirit of the law being Jesus (in the new testament) is said to be the WORD made flesh meaning (the law, and the Prophets) fulfilling what each said, being that he spoke it from the begining. Which is meaning God/Jesus are one.

ok if its cosher I'll try to use a New testament example(I am not putting this up for offense or conversion reasons, just need something extra to maybe help out what I'm actually trying to say, so if any of this is offensive I apoligise, its not at all meant for offense)

Matt 12:1-8
12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!" 3 But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
NKJV

Basically Jesus is the law/words of the prophets(the word made flesh). That is to the Christian world. Thus the fraze (I guess anyways) spirit of the law.

But back on topic what is Jewis tradition about the time period of Jesus+ Pharisees......???? Or is their anything in the Jewis history on this period of time? I guess in other words does the Jewis religion recognize Jesus at all in their history books? And does it even say anything about the pharisees, or sects of that day?

09-10-2003, 07:25 PM	#1 (permalink)
I, Brian Soul Rebel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Highlands of Scotland Posts: 4,598	What did the Pharisees represent? Anyone even vaguely familiar with the New Testament and Judaism will likely be familiar with "the Pharisees". However, I've had difficulty chasing up more details about this group. What did they actually represent? What did they actually belief in? Josephus is no help here in the work I read, as it has barely a sentence each for the Pharisees and Sadduccees - though does devote a few pages of admiration for the Essenes. (It's great what you can find in ancient literature. ) My perception of the Pharisee tradition is one of "rules lawyers". However, is that a flawed perception?

09-11-2003, 04:19 PM	#3 (permalink)
bananabrain Super Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah Posts: 1,409	hmmm "pharisee" is not a word that jews ever used to signify a particular group. there is a word "mefarshim", with the root being Peh-Resh-Shin (P=F in hebrew) meaning 'commentators'. taking the legalistic connotations of the NT, i'd say that the "doctors of law" probably signifies the rabbis of the talmudic period - paul himself studied under a 'gamliel' - there were a number of famous tannaim (rabbis of the early talmudic or mishnaic period) of that name. bear in mind that "legalism" is not a bad thing in judaism, law being the paradigm of our our spiritual code. it became so much later on after the pauline tendency began to emphasise "faith and works" as a means of differentiating good christians from hypocritical jews in behavioural terms. therefore, if you wanted to diss someone, you'd accuse them of having their nose in a book of halacha instead of dealing with people as people. it's not a new argument, as it happens; the rabbis themselves had a similar argument with the sadducees and later on, rabbinic judaism had a similar argument with karaism, mystics vs rationalists in the middle ages and chasidim vs mitnagdim (not to mention reform vs orthodox) in the modern period. b'shalom bananabrain

09-15-2003, 03:44 PM	#7 (permalink)
bananabrain Super Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah Posts: 1,409	well... as a practicing jew, i believe that the "pharisees" of the NT are an umbrella term for what became normative, rabbinic judaism. however, the problem is that in 1st century judea, there was a religious "establishment", namely the Temple, which had central authority and a priestly caste - who were, effectively the people referred to as the "sadducees". the "supreme court" of judaism, the sanhedrin, was in the Temple complex. to get in the sanhedrin (a body of 70 sages) you had to be a sage, not a priest, although some were both. and the sanhedrin had executive and legislative power - but was also susceptible to roman and priestly (ie sadducee) political pressure. eventually, when the Temple was destroyed by the romans after an abortive uprising in 70CE (AD) the authority of the priestly caste was destroyed with it. the alternative was the "roots" movement of the synagogues that sprang up, starting in yavneh under r. yohanan ben zakkai, who escaped from the sack of jerusalem. so, insofar as pre-destruction, there was a group which seemed to correspond more or less to the "pharisaic party", it isn't a clear group of people from a historical or judaic PoV, let alone a "sect", because what is now normative judaism came out of the rabbinic tradition. the essenes, sicarii, gnostics, apocalyptics and those qumran buggers - not to mention the proto-christians - are the ones more properly referred to as sects. in terms of what sjr says i suppose that could refer to whoever in the town or village knew the most law, but it was nothing like being a bishop, more like being the village elder/magistrate. however, you can see how such a person might behave in a manner which might be "pharisaic" in the NT, 'whited sepulchre' sense, and therefore incur the displeasure of a radical populist preacher like jesus - and he'd be right, too. b'shalom bananabrain

09-22-2003, 06:08 PM	#11 (permalink)
bananabrain Super Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah Posts: 1,409	oh, i know... don't mean to carp. what i mean to say is "that's perhaps a little simplistic and more than a little tendentious". i am on a bit of a rant today for some reason. don't mind me. b'shalom bananabrain

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

09-11-2003, 01:08 AM	#2 (permalink)
Siege Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 43	It's my understanding that they were the good, upstanding Jews of the day. They didn't see themselves as being excessively law-oriented or self-righteous, but as people who behaved the way God instructed them too. Their equivalent in modern day Christianity is probably the people who are the local "pillars of the church", who serve on the vestry if they're Anglican, or on the Altar Guild, who teach Sunday school, and generally believe they're doing a pretty good job of practicing their religion. CJ

09-11-2003, 07:10 PM	#4 (permalink)
I, Brian Soul Rebel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Highlands of Scotland Posts: 4,598	I've had out Strong's Concordance, and "Pharisees" are referenced as "A Jewish Sect". The stem referenced for that from the Greek shows as 5330: Pharisaios - a separatist, ie, exclusively religious; a Pharisoean, ie Jewish Sectary:- a Pharisee. It also suggests the origin is from the Hebrew word listed 6567: Parash - a primitive root; to separate; literally, to disperse, or figuratively, to specificy; also, by implication, to wound: scatter, declare, distinctly, shew, sting. Hm...not immediately enlightening. I was under the impression (from somewhere, no idea where - Josephus??) that the Pharisees were seen as like the Stoics of Rome, and who had exemplified themselves during the period covered in Maccabees - but who had tarnished their image through overt literalism (and probably also political affiliations - I suppose anyassociation with the Herodican dynasty wouldn't necessarily be popular in some quarters). I've seen Christians use the term agaisnt one another, to imply someone more interested in scriptural legalism than compassionate action - caring for the paper the words are writ on, rather than people they are writ about. With the comments above I can imagine some element of the Talmudic commentators being referenced - but I'm still not sure of any real definition of a sect. It would be interesting to see how the Sadduccees differed so significantly. (I am musing aloud, I guess.)

09-11-2003, 08:54 PM	#5 (permalink)
sjr Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 68	I dont think anyone knows 100% for sure,but the people (Jewish) Ive talked to say they were like bishops in modern christianity. In every town and village at the time of Jesus.Ive read some informative post from practicing Jews here I wish they would take a stab at this question.

09-12-2003, 06:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
Baud Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Toulouse, France Posts: 71	The definition in my dictionary (translated from French) says: "Member of a Jewish sect that appeared in the second century bce which purported to follow rigorously and strictly Moses' law, but which is, in the Gospel, charged with sticking too close to formalism and of being hypocrytal." (Petit Larousse Illustré, Larousse, 1993) I don't know if that helps anyone. Baud

09-21-2003, 09:32 PM	#8 (permalink)
Dave the Web General Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 187	The Pharisees were the letter of the Law. Jesus was the spirit of the Law. That is my interpretation.

09-24-2003, 09:45 PM	#12 (permalink)
Dave the Web General Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 187	My interpretation is simply that. It is not a truth, simply as way of addressing an issue I can never entertain complete surety of. It may be simplistic but that is the intention of my comment. I have not the ability to write a essay length perception drawn from various conjectures. I simply view the matter from the New Testament accounts which do make a point of portraying the issues as so. In those accounts the Pharisees seek to prosecute Jesus at every opportunity for breaking the letter of the law. Jesus always rebukes that he is acting within the spirit of it. As ever it is my interpretation and make no claims of being an expert or any kind.